So, quite the ramble. But, are we clear?
1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.
no, I don't think we are clear. that is, perhaps, the biggest stumbling block to discussing this whole issue.
Okay, I'm listening
The results of the five or six or seven polls mentioned, as to the percentage of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid are extremely close and the differences have a strong time correlation indicating that the consensus accepting AGW is large and has simply grown over time. Do you see anything in Von Storch's work that does not work with such a construction?
Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown objective evidence that such adjustments were not justified by the science or were intended to falsely represent past climates - though precisely those charges have flown like a swarm of locusts. Your reference to coming out of the LIA rather than the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is less than subtle. If you do not see a change between the rate of warming of 1650-1850 and the rate of warming of 1850-present, you need to get your eyes checked.
Then rejoice, because aside from a few holdouts here (and scattered thinly there), they do. They call it THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. However, the amount of warming that will result from a doubling of the CO2 concentration is under discussion but they've got it whittled down to a range of accepted values.
Climate sensitivity has most ASSUREDLY not been "just assumed to be correct".
Go to
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf and scroll wa-a-a-a-ay down to section 10.8.1 and read (or just skim the 6 pages) from there to the end of 10.8.4. Then feel free to explain to us how mistaken you were about climate sensitivity just being assumed to be correct.
Maybe I'm just not following this ramble, but it seems to have a few flaws.
o The top of the atmosphere is a gradient, not a boundary.
o If IR absorption by CO2 is a boundary effect, how does it get to boundary number two?
o If it's a boundary effect, how does it get to surface heat sinks?
o Where is IR stored in the atmosphere as latent heat?
o What are these "other routes" that radiation can take?
o Why are these other routes more efficient as temperatures increase?
o If IR is taking all these other routes, how are temperatures increasing?
o You say equilibriums change when conditions change. When has the Earth's climate EVER been in equilibrium?
o Isn't saying "Equilibriums change when conditions change" analogous to saying V=dX.
o Unless you're bringing up the Gaia Hypothesis, there is no homeostasis in the Earth's climate.
o The Earth has spent significant amounts of its history in states that would be VERY harmful to modern civilization. To constrain the near future to that range is not a comfort.
o The only times in the Earth's history in which it has experienced a CO2 dump similar to the last 150 years, it had just been struck by a 7-mile wide asteroid or was suffering the creation of the Deccan Traps.
The world's climate scientists tell us that you are simply wrong here. There is an enormous and constantly growing balance of evidence that human activity is the primary cause of the last 150 year's warming. Read AR5. Read the work AR5 uses. Don't cop out.
until we get some realistic idea of how much warming is directly attributable to CO2 should we just carry on in the present SOP and blame everything on CO2?
We HAVE a very realistic idea of how much warming is attributable to CO2. Unfortunately, mostly because humans are lazy, stupid bastards, but partially because of folks like you making bullshit arguments like this, we're not going to do a damn thing about it.
the demonization of CO2 is just a proxy for demonizing humanity. I would rather spent the trillions of dollars cleaning up real pollution and improving the standards for most of the people of the world, rather than spend it on futile and wasteful attempts to curba necessary energy usage.
You don't think switching from oil and coal to wind and sunlight will clean up any real pollution? Of course it won't.
